-
Recent Posts
- Remaining Races and Recounts
- Election Recap
- Electoral College Anachronism
- Election Security
- Election Night Preview — Part Six (Post-Midnight Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Five — The Local News and the West Coast (11:00 To 11:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Four — Prime Time Hour Three (10:00 to 10:59 P.M. Eastern)
Search
Welcome to DCW
Upcoming Events
7/15/24 - GOP Convention
TBD - Democratic Convention
11/5/24 - Election DayTools
Archives
Tag Cloud
2008 Democratic National Convention 2012 Democratic National Convention 2012 Republican National Convention 2016 Democratic National Convention 2016 Republican National Convention 2020 Census 2020 Democratic Convention 2024 Democratic Convention 2024 Republican Convention Abortion Affordable Care Act Alabama Arizona Bernie Sanders California Colorado Donald Trump First Amendment Florida Free Exercise Clause Free Speech Georgia Hillary Clinton Immigration Iowa Joe Biden Kansas Maine Marco Rubio Michigan Missouri Nevada New Hampshire North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania redistricting South Carolina Supreme Court Ted Cruz Texas United Kingdom Virginia Voting Rights Act WisconsinDCW in the News
Blog Roll
Site Info
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- tmess2 on Election Recap
- Anthony Uplandpoet Watkins on Election Recap
- Anthony Uplandpoet Watkins on Election Recap
- DocJess on Don’t think we’re getting a contested convention
- Matt on Dems to nominate Biden early to avoid GOP Ohio nonsense
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- September 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- August 2013
- August 2012
- November 2011
- August 2011
- January 2011
- May 2010
- January 2009
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
Categories
- 2019-nCoV
- 2020 Convention
- 2020 General Election
- 2020DNC
- 2024 Convention
- 2028 Convention
- Anti-Semitism
- Bernie Sanders
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Civil Rights
- Cleveland
- Climate Change
- Coronavirus
- Coronavirus Tips
- COVID-19
- Debates
- Delegate Count
- Delegates
- Democratic Debates
- Democratic Party
- Democrats
- DemsinPhilly
- DemsInPHL
- Disaster
- DNC
- Donald Trump
- Economy
- Elections
- Electoral College
- Federal Budget
- Freedom of the Press
- General Election Forecast
- GOP
- Healthcare
- Hillary Clinton
- Holidays
- Hotels
- House of Representatives
- Houston
- Identity Politics
- Impeachment
- Iowa Caucuses
- Jacksonville
- Joe Biden
- Judicial
- LGBT
- Mariner Pipeline
- Merrick Garland
- Meta
- Milwaukee
- Money in Politics
- Music
- National Security
- Netroots Nation
- New Yor
- New York
- NH Primary
- Notes from Your Doctor
- NoWallNoBan
- Pandemic
- Philadelphia
- PHLDNC2016
- Platform
- Politics
- Polls
- Presidential Candidates
- Primary and Caucus Results
- Primary Elections
- Public Health
- Rant
- Republican Debates
- Republicans
- Resist
- RNC
- Russia
- Senate
- Snark
- Student Loan Debt
- Sunday with the Senators
- Superdelegates
- Syria
- The Politics of Hate
- Uncategorized
- Vaccines
- War
- Weekly White House Address
Meta
Monthly Archives: March 2024
Easter Convention Update
- The GOP is considering limiting NBC’s access to the GOP convention due to the Ronna McDaniel disaster
- Illinois has a special organization just to plan parties and events for the delegation
- And the battle over who gets to march, and when and where, during the Dem convention continues
Posted in 2024 Convention, Chicago
Tagged 2024 Democratic Convention, 2024 Republican Convention
Comments Off on Easter Convention Update
Persuasion vs. Coercion
Sometimes, the U.S. Supreme Court will schedule arguments to create a “theme” day. In other words, the Court will schedule two cases which are technically unrelated but involve similar issues. By hearing arguments in the two cases back-to-back, the Justices get two factually different pictures of conduct to point out some of the different ways that the issue might arise and, hopefully, can get some input through both cases on how a particular test for judging whether conduct crossed the line would play out.
This week, we had one of those theme days involving when governmental conduct indirectly infringes on the First Amendment. The first case, Murthy, Surgeon General, vs. Missouri, arises from the efforts of the Surgeon General’s Office to talk with social media companies about posts containing medically harmful information related to COVID. The nutty Attorney Generals from Louisiana and Missouri (which at that time was now Senator Eric Schmitt) filed a lawsuit in front of a handpicked judge in the Western District of Louisiana seeking an injunction barring all communications between federal officials and social media companies. That “judge” granted that request. The Fifth Circuit narrowed the injunction somewhat but left it substantially intact. The other case, National Rifle Association vs. Vullo, involves a state financial services regulator trying to persuade regulated entities (banks and insurance companies) that they should stop doing business with the NRA.
What seems to be clear from the arguments in these two cases is that the Supreme Court is likely to make a distinction between persuasion and coercion. In asking questions, several justices fell back on their own executive branch experience. In traditional media, it is not unusual for reporters to call government officials asking for comments on a potential story. In some cases, the story is one that, for a variety of reasons, the government official might prefer that the story not get published (or at least that certain details not run). Sometimes those reasons are good reasons like in a murder investigation somebody might have leaked a key detail from the crime scene to a reporter which the police were intending to use as a “false confession check” (on the theory that only the killer would know that detail so any nut coming in to take credit for something they did not do would get that detail wrong). But those reasons might not be strong enough for the government to seek a court order preventing publication. So the government will try to convince the news media that it would be best if that information was not included in the story. In making this request, the government might offer a “comp” like an exclusive interview with the police chief on some other topic. It seems like, in the Murthy case, the Supreme Court is likely to slap the lower court and the state AGs hard for what is really a legally meritless argument. There is really nothing here suggesting that these claims involve anything beyond routine attempts to persuade media to go with the official story. And the First Amendment does not prohibit the government from trying to convince publishers to do the right thing.
Posted in Judicial
Tagged Abuse of Process, Covid, First Amendment, Louisiana, Missouri, NRA, Social Media, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Persuasion vs. Coercion
Social Media and the Supreme Court — Round 1
One of the downsides of the legal system is that the final say on how laws apply to new technologies tend to fall on a group of older lawyers. In other words, most of the votes are in the hands of people who are not on the cutting edge of technology. This year, there will be several cases before the Supreme Court involving social media. To put things in perspective, the four youngest justices essentially went to law school either while I was going to law school or right after I went to law school. At the time that I was in law school, most students did not have e-mail accounts, and we were using very early versions of Word and WordPerfect as our software for writing papers and exams. Needless to say, sites like Facebook and X were not part of our law school and college experiences.
This past week, we got the first of the social media cases for the year — actually two separate cases raising the same issue — whether a public official can block individuals from commenting on the official’s social media webpages. When faced with novel issues, judges tend to try to fall back on existing legal doctrines even if that means forcing round pegs into square holes. And to a some extent that is what we got in the lead case — Lindke vs. Freed in an actual unanimous opinoin written by Justice Barrett.
The basic facts of this case is that the webpage in question was the personal account of the public official. The official had this account before running for and winning his current position. However, he does not his public position on the account similar to how many people not their employment. And he does use his webpage to mention what is going on with that position. The people on the other side of this case took advantage of the comment feature of the webpage to critique what the city government was doing. The public official deleted some comments that he thought were inappropriate or inaccurate before eventually blocking these individuals from commenting. The people who were blocked brought a case claiming that, by blocking them, this official was violating their First Amendment rights.
Posted in Judicial
Tagged First Amendment, Social Media, State Action, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Social Media and the Supreme Court — Round 1
Primary Elections — Week of March 18
With the presidential nominations effectively wrapped up, the focus of primary season shifts to Congress. States face conflicting incentives in terms of primary scheduling. First, for presidential primaries, an early primary increases the chance that a state will vote before the nomination is effectively decided. But, especially a state with a part-time legislature that only meets in the Spring, a Summer primary allows the legislature to wrap up its business (with appropriate goodies for the districts of favored legislators facing a tough race) and gives the legislators time to spend back in their district campaigning. Second, it saves money for a state to combine presidential primaries with the primaries for other offices. Thus, only some of the states with early primaries for president also have the primaries for other offices on the same day.
This week, three states have primaries for “other” offices. The first is actually a special election. That election is to fill the seat created by Kevin McCarthy deciding that he did not want to return to just being a member of the House after he lost the vote of no confidence (technically motion to vacate the chair) last fall. For regular elections, California uses a “top two” primary in which, regardless of the vote for the leading candidate, the second-placed candidate advances to the general election. For special elections, if the leading candidate gets a majority, that candidate wins. If not, there will be a runoff between the top two candidates. Two weeks ago, there was the regular primary for the seat. Given how long it takes California to process its ballot, the race for second place is still too close to call. Given that most of the votes remaining appear to be from the county in which the current third-placed candidate finished ahead of the second-placed candidate, the primary may actually be recount close. Right now, the “second” Republican is still in second place. That should discourage Republicans from unifying behind the current leading candidate in the special election (as supporters of the Republican currently in second have hopes that their candidate will make the general election and do not want to make the leading candidate the incumber candidate). As the leading candidate did not get a majority in the primary, there is a good chance that there will be a runoff in this race. If the leading candidate (Kevin McCarthy’s handpicked candidate, Vince Fong) can get the majority, the Republicans get this seat back. If not, it remains vacant until after the runoff in two months (probably keeping the seat vacant through June). Needless to say, the Republicans in Washington are praying for an outright winner on Tuesday.
The next state on the list is Ohio. In recent years, ticket splitting has declined, and it has become harder for a Congressional candidate to win a state/district that voted for the presidential candidate of the other party. Currently, there are only senators (three Democrats and two Republicans) representing states won in 2020 by the other party. The three Democrats are up for election this year. Joe Manchin of West Virginia has decided that, despite his personal popularity in his state, the presidential margin is just too much to overcome. That leaves Jon Tester of Montana and Sherrod Brown of Ohio to face their voters this year. Given that Ohio has been getting redder in recent years, Republicans are hopeful that whomever they nominate might win the seat in November to give the Republicans a senate majority. But with Republicans thinking that they can win, the primary attracted multiple candidates. The race originally looked like a three-person race. Objectively, if Republicans wanted somebody ready to be a senator, the obvious choice would be the current Secretary of State, Frank LaRose. But serving in an executive position requires actually following the law. And, while Secretary LaRose has definitely put his thumb on the scale as much as he can, those decisions disqualify him for “purists.” Neither of the other two candidates would be a strong contender if the Republican primary was being held in the real world. With Secretary LaRose struggling, the establishment has unified behind Matt Dolan. What Mr. Dolan has going for him is that his family is wealthy, and he has been willing to spend enough of his own money to be competitive (both this cycle and two years ago when he put up a solid fight in the primary for the other seat). The Trump candidate is Bernie Moreno. As was the case back in 2022, for Democrats choosing to participate in the Republican primary, the question is whether to vote for the weaker candidate (Moreno) to increase the odds of winning in the general election or to vote for the sanest candidate (Dolan) just in case Brown loses in November. The national party has run adds attacking Moreno as too extreme in the reverse psychology ploy to get Republicans to commit political suicide by nominating Moreno.
Posted in House of Representatives, Primary Elections, Senate
Tagged 2024 Primary Election, Bernie Moreno, Bill Johnson, California, Danny Davis, Frank LaRose, Illinois, J.R. Majewski, Kevin McCarthy, Marcia Kaptur, Matt Dolan, Ohio, Sherrod Brown, Vince Fong
Comments Off on Primary Elections — Week of March 18
St. Patrick’s Day Convention Update
Here’s the latest news:
- In a huge surprise, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will be nominated for president and vice president in Chicago this summer.
- NBC 5 Chicago reports on the three Black women leading preparations for the convention.
- State delegation hotel assignments have been announced.
- But no state is assigned to the non-union Trump International Hotel and Tower! However, Fox News can stay there if they want.
- All delegation hotels are withing 5 miles of the convention venues, one of the reasons Chicago will remain an attractive host city for future conventions (assuming no repeat of 1968).
Posted in 2024 Convention, Chicago
Tagged 2024 Democratic Convention
Comments Off on St. Patrick’s Day Convention Update
The Supreme Court’s Ballot Access “Decision”
Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0/5-4 decision in Anderson vs. Trump — the Section 3 case out of Colorado. The majority opinion was a textbook example of the problem with originalism as the three opinions attempted to divine what the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment would have wanted a court looking at this issue to do. The opinion was NOT a textualist opinion. Instead, it was an ahistorical attempt to reason how the Congress that proposed (and the state legislatures that ratified) the amendment would have thought the rule would be for this type of case.
To understand the problem, we first need to understand the “real” world of the 1860s. Elections were run differently back then. Today, every state uses a variation of the “Australian ballot.” The essence of the Australian ballot is a pre-printed unmarked ballot containing all of the names of all of the candidates for all of the offices which the voter marks in the voting booth. Prior to the adoption of the Australian ballot, depending on the state and location, votes were either public or involved a paper ballot. In states with paper ballots, “party” newspapers (or the party itself) printed the party’s “ticket” — a ballot with all of the offices with only that party’s candidate for the office listed. In other words, candidates did not file for office with the election authority prior to the election, and there was no official ballot. Thus, even when the local party put forward an ineligible, there was no means to disqualify a candidate before that candidate won.
In this type of system, by necessity, any challenge to the eligibility of a candidate had to come after the election. There were two ways to challenge the eligibility of candidate/office holder. First, one of the other candidates could file an election challenge (assuming that state law permitted such a challenge). While, in some states, this might have been a viable method for challenging a local official, it works less well (even today) for those elected to state legislatures and federal positions. In many states for the state legislature and for Congress, the final say on the validity of election results rests with the legislative body (either Congress or the respective state legislature). As we saw back in 2008, even on an expedited basis, there is not enough time for an election dispute to go through the court process before the new term begins. Not surprisingly, in the 1860s and 1870s, if a former Confederate were elected to Congress, Congress handled the matter by not seating the new member of Congress rather than state courts resolving the issue. As there was never an ineligible person who received any electoral votes for president, there simply is no historical precedent for how Congress would have handled that issue.
Posted in Judicial
Tagged Judicial Activism, Section 3, Supreme Court, Trump vs. Anderson
Comments Off on The Supreme Court’s Ballot Access “Decision”
Super Tuesday Convention Update
- Applications for a Summer Internship with the Chicago Host Committee are being accepted.
- Sign up to volunteer at the convention here.
- Here’s some surprising news: If you give a lot of money to the Democratic Convention, you’ll get a nice hotel room and great seats in the arena!
- The CNN-Political Grill is coming to Milwaukee and Chicago this summer.
- And Chicago security is preparing:
Posted in 2024 Convention, Chicago
Tagged 2024 Democratic Convention
Comments Off on Super Tuesday Convention Update
Trump vs. United States — The Immunity Argument
Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would hear arguments in the case of Trump v. United States, regarding Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution for his role in the January 6 insurrection because his actions that day were official actions. They also announced that arguments will be held this term — on April 22. There is a lot to unpack in this order.
Let’s start with the procedural posture of this case. Late last year, the trial judge (sitting in the federal district court for D.C.) denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment based, in part, on his claim of absolute immunity for actions taken while President. He then filed an “interlocutory” appeal of that ruling. (In most cases, parties can only appeal when a case is over. There are a limited number of circumstances in which a party can immediately appeal from a pre-trial ruling,) The appellate court (the D.C. Circuit) expedited the appeal (even more so than is normal for interlocutory appeals). Despite the D.C. Circuit expediting the case, the special prosecutor, In December, asked that the U.S. Supreme Court take the case without waiting for a ruling from the appellate court (something that is rarely done). But, on December 22, the U.S. Supreme Court denied that request.
On February 6, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion affirming the trial court. Normally, there would be a brief period of time before the “mandate” (the formal order implementing the opinion and restoring the authority to the trial court to proceed). But the panel that issued the opinion set a quick deadline of February 12 for Trump to get a stay of the mandate from either the full D.C. Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, on February 12, Trump filed for a stay with the U.S. Supreme Court. Now, in most cases, once the stay were granted, the case would proceed on a normal schedule. On a normal schedule, Trump would then ask for rehearing from the full D.C. Circuit. If and when the D.C. Circuit declined to rehear the case (the ruling in almost all cases), Trump would then have ninety days (plus any extensions) to ask for certioarari (the formal order taking the appeal) from the Supreme Court. In some cases, however, when the U.S. Supreme Court issues a stay, it will also treat the stay application as a petition for certiorari. The special prosecutor, in his response to the stay application, while arguing for the U.S. Supreme Court to deny the stay, made the alternative argument that, if the U.S. Supreme Court did grant the stay, it should exercise that power to treat the stay application as a petition for certiorari and expedite the case.
Posted in Donald Trump, Judicial
Tagged D.C. Circuit, Donald Trump, Immunity, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Trump vs. United States — The Immunity Argument